Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

You presume he cares about legitimacy! He's essentially outraged that House formed a special committee on the shape of the earth and refused to seat flat-earthers.

 

you already know this, but its worth repeating that pelosi disallowed two people from the committee b/c they were involved in propagating the very lies that led to the insurrection and were subjects of the investigation. after that it was mccarthy who pulled the rest of his picks, a move that trump himself later criticized.

 

They have called a number of witnesses that have refused to answer questions or refused to answer subpoenas.

They are offering Trump a platform and he is refusing. Kind of odd for someone who loves the spotlight.

 

unrelated to J6, but another current example of why one can't trust the FBI, or what the FBI tells congress.

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/16...ngress-about-plans-for-deploying-nso-spyware/

 

Anyone who asked Trump for a pardon should not be on the committee. McCarthy nominated Gym Jordan. He nominated 3 people who said the election was stolen and voted against certification. Those whackjobs were rejected and McCarthy refused to nominate sane Republicans. Perhaps he couldn't find any others than Cheney and Kinzinger.

 

That's not a rule.

Adam Schiff is a prolific leaker of classified information and sits on the intelligence committee.

Eric Swalwell cheated on his wife with a Chinese spy and still sits on the intelligence committee and has a security clearance.

 

do you really need a rule stating that insurrectionists should not be allowed on a committee investigating insurrections?

i did a google search on this and only got accusations from trump that he was a leaker...do you have any legitimate sources to back up your claim?

i also did a google search on this and found no proof that he cheated on his wife with a chinese spy...do you have any legitimate sources to back up your claim?

 

None of that prevented any good faith truth seeking Republican to sit on the commission, and get the answers you seem to want.

Again, you want accountability, vote for better representation. Leader McCarthy blew the opportunity.

 

If Pelosi broke that precedent, why wouldn't she break others?

 

The precedent broken was when the Republicans participated in the insurrection. Again, people who are subjects of the investigation should not be allowed to sit on the committee.

 

what precedent did she break exactly?

also still waiting for you to provide proof that swalwell cheated on his wife with a spy and that adam schiff was a "prolific leaker of classified intel".

 

You know nothing you could ever say will change that MAGAGA head's mind, right? Seriously. People with their heads that far up Trump's butt can't see the light.

 

He's looking for a tweet....

 

lol

 

heehee. my friend, at some point, the fault lies with us on the whole waiting for proof thingy.

 

Why not? This is meant to be a serious question, not a flippant remark. Clearly this was an adversarial process, akin to a criminal trial. They were subpoenaing witnesses and taking statements under oath. They were leveling accusations. They were recommending prosecutions. Why not have people who were in opposition to their goals on the committee that could subpoena witnesses they thought would provide a counterpoint, allow cross-examination of the witnesses subpoenaed by the majority, etc.? One could argue that this was more akin to a grand jury proceeding (at which the accused is not allowed to participate), but at a grand jury proceeding the government is supposed to raise all possible defenses and protect the rights of the accused. Grand jury proceedings are also confidential, in no small part due to the very fact that they are one-sided and the accused is not able to bring a defense, where here the proceedings were nationally televised.

 

People opposed to the goals were allowed to be on the committee. But McCarthy pulled them.

People who are subjects of the investigations or involved should not be on the committee.

Like I've said before, AC Cowlings would never be allowed to sit on the Jury for the OJ Simpson trial.

 

Except it’s not a grand jury proceeding. The Committee has no power to indict or jail anyone. Even for contempt of Congress
All they can do is refer to the DOJ.

for someone respects the Constitution so much I find it odd that you would want Congress to behave like the judicial branch.

Also even though the committee isn’t the judicial or executive branch they still have to respect individual rights. You wouldn’t have so many invoking the Fifth if they didn’t.

 

I don't want them to behave like the judicial branch (or more accurately both the judicial and the executive branch, as they are both presenting and judging the facts). I don't think they should be doing the hearings at all. Congress is not a law enforcement organization, it is a legislature. Their job is to pass laws, not hold investigative hearings. The DOJ should have been handling all this using their normal procedures to investigate and present their case to a neutral grand jury. As the successful prosecution of hundreds of January 6th rioters has shown, the DOJ is perfectly able to handle it.

If they are going to choose to act like an executive branch agency and hold hearings after which they recommend charges, they should be providing more safeguards, more due process. While they are respecting the 5th Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, they are not allowing for the confrontation and cross examination of each witness by the accused, representation of counsel, discovery, etc. Disallowing the participation of one party's chosen representatives is a stain, and an unnecessary one.

As @rocketsjudoka pointed out, this is not a trial, and they are not jurors.

 

Understood but an investigative committee doesn't want to have potential subjects as part of the investigation, especially when they might interfere by communicating with other subjects of the investigation.

They reasoning behind not having biased jurors makes sense. It makes sense even if it isn't jury. The reasoning is sound for any situation.